Ive been a faithful Nikon person. Not cause I particularly like Nikon, but thats where I started, and got my lenses for. Ive always avoided the Nikon vs. Canon discussion as it never really mattered that much. But lately ive been wondering if Nikon is really able to keep up.

The main reason for this is Canon's EOS 5D Mark II. It's a 21mp SLR with 1080p video capabilities, priced at around $2500. For now, I dont think Nikon has anything even close to this. The D90 is a 12mp camera with 720p video, which is at least 1 generation behind the Canon imho. There is a rumored D400 coming, which supposedly is a D300 with 720p, maybe 1080p, and possibly 16mp. Still, it seems to be way behind Canon. Now Nikon has a D3x, its first 20+mp camera, but at a prohibitively expensive $8000.

I just dont see anything coming in Nikon's future that would not seriously disrupts its current camera lineup and be close to the EOS 5d Mark II in price/performance.

As im currently looking to replace my Nikon D2x (leaning towards D700), my brain keeps nagging me... what about the 5D Mark II. I really hate to replace everything I own, but it seems like Nikon is now terminally behind Canon. It's only saving grace could be better chip performance.

It is true Nikon doesn't have a direct competitor to the 5D Mk2. The D3X is a competitor to the 1Ds Mk3, is priced accordingly and exceeds it in most departments. It will be on sale in a couple of weeks. Oh and already has a housing (are the 5D Mk2 housings out yet?).

But I think everyone would be shocked if there was not a 24MP D700x by the summer. Although probably at least $1000-1500 more than the 5D Mk2 (but it will have good AF) and won't be marketed as such. You'll get another 3MP and Pro build and AF for your extra $cash.

I am not a videographer and give the very different lighting need of video versus stills underwater, means I see underwater video on DSLRs as a toy as an either or at present. And I don't see any of the 5D Mk2 housings catering properly to video.

I think Nikon and Canon are in a leap frogging stage at present and Nikon seem to be on the more upward trajectory.

Im not sure I agree it's a leap frogging stage. Nikon seems to be continuously catching up, maybe slightly surpassing a canon equivalent, but never really leapfrogging significantly ahead of the curve.

A 24mp D700x would be nice. I may opt for the D3x, because like you said the housings are available which is always a plus, and I do feel the difference between the D3 and the D2 series is significant.

Ultimately I think it makes very little difference whether one stays with Nikon or Canon at the present time, and the most logical thing seems to be to stick with the brand that one has invested in glass. As great a camera as the 5DMkII appears to be, the D700 / D3 cameras are amazing tools, and in some very significant ways still superior to the Canon equivalents. For speed, build, ergonomics and low ISO performance, the D3 and D700 are still king of the hill. As Alex says, I suspect that Nikon will 'round' out their range with a D700x (24MP + video) fairly soon. Particularly for underwater use, the option of 24MP FX and 10MP DX is also a pretty valuable feature. Canon seems to have little interest in offering this feature. Hope for a 700x is reason to hold on to my Tokina 10-17. Think about it, the choice of a D3x / D3 and D700 / D700x will certainly be equivalent or better than anything Canon offers over the next 2- 3 years. I'm hopeful that Nikon sticks with the 12MP sensor in addition to the 24MP for a while.

I would love a video function on my SLR. Not because I think im going to shoot award winning video, but because I find myself in situations where I just know a photo isnt going to show what it is im seeing. Some weird behavior, or whatever. Being able to shoot short video clips would be very welcome for me.

If it weren't for the 5D2, where would Nikon be behind now? If the D700x comes out next year, where will Canon be ahead? After being so far behind in past years, now is not the time to bury Nikon!

Still, for anyone switching to full frame and not using a special lens (like the 14-24 or the 70-180) why not consider switching to the 5D2 from Nikon? Your wide angle lenses will change anyway so all you would be losing would be your 60 and 105 (more or less). It seems more a matter or your above-water investment in equipment to me.

If I were a Nikon shooter committed to upgrade right away, I'd probably go D3x but I'd seriously consider the 5D2. Video features aren't important to me though. The D700x is what I want.

Id probably buy the mythical D700x instantly if it existed If I knew for sure the D700x would fit in a D700 housing, that would probably settle my decision on the D700. The D3x would be nice, but its so incredibly expensive, heavy, large, .....

If it weren't for the 5D2, where would Nikon be behind now?

Thats just the thing.. the 5D2 does exist. The 1DsM3 has been out for what, a year and a half? Canon is halfway onto the next generation. I guess im just disappointed that Nikon seems to continuously be behind in the curve, and features id like to have now because Canon has them now, wont arrive for another year.

I have played with both the Nikon D90, and the Canon 5D MkII. In my opinion the Canon is the superior camera. But I think both cameras have added the video feature in response to the newspaper industry's recent push to have its photographers provide more multimedia (video) content for their on-line publications. For a photojournalist who is being asked to provide both types of media from a breaking news event, a single camera that can do both is beneficial. But as video cameras, both are less than ideal IMO. Although the lens selection is terrific, the flexibility for audio is still pretty weak. The ergonomics of a DSLR when shooting video is also not the best. For underwater use, you'll need to decide if you want to shoot primarily stills or video, and outfit yourself accordingly. If you are shooting video UW I don't think a Canon 5D MkII would be one of your top choices. Ultimately, since you have a substantial investment in Nikon equipment already, I think your money would be spent more wisely on Nikon upgrades. Despite the endless Canon/Nikon horserace, both companies produce excellent tools for you to work with. The recent D3/D700 introduced a significant improvement in image quality, and I imagine any future products from Nikon will likely be even better. I say save your money and "dance with who brung ya' "

Well, as someone who'd made the switch there are many reasons to do so, and they are changing all the time. For me, I got tired of waiting for the D2x so went to Canon. I also knew I had a safari coming up and Canon's exotic tele's are 50% less $$$ than Nikon's. Lenses are roughly equivalent now. It used to be that the 70-180 tilted the boat toward Nikon for macro, but on FF, other lenses are now better, IMO (Tamron 70-200 f2.8).

I also think it's a bit too early to judge the D3x as it isn't readily available and thoroughly tested yet. To say it's better than the 1DsMkIII just isn't possible yet, IMO.

We all think there will be a D700x just like we all thought there would be a D3x. But how long did it take for the D3x to actually appear? A year! Hopefully Nikon can do better w/ the 700x if there is to be one.

The D3x as it isn't readily available and thoroughly tested yet. To say it's better than the 1DsMkIII just isn't possible yet, IMO.

We all think there will be a D700x just like we all thought there would be a D3x. But how long did it take for the D3x to actually appear? A year! Hopefully Nikon can do better w/ the 700x if there is to be one.

Fair point on the first on, James. But I'll be shocked if these reviews aren't everywhere in the next week.

On the second one I think the more reliable model is the D3 to D700 wait. Once the D3 was released, then just three months later we were all shocked that the sensor cropped up in a smaller body.

I think that the biggest caveat regarding a D700x is not the if or when. But I can see Nikon calling it a D900 and changing the body from the the D700 - much to the annoyance of those with D700 housings. I really hope that they don't, but there is not the same need to stick with a camera internal structure as with the D3 series (as we already saw with the D300 to D700).

I have been a Canon SLR user for 25+ years, and when it came to taking digital UW a couple of years ago, I considered the price/resolution equation and decided a Nikon d200 was the way to go. Now a couple of years on, I have housed an EOS1dskII. So my two bobs worth...

I think it depends on your shooting style and how adaptable you are. My biggest issue with system change in the end wasn't about resolution or build quality or features. My biggest problem has been shooting with a camera that does everything back-to-front (to what I was used to).

I'm used to shooting instinctively and when shooting the Nikon I am always finding myself thinking too much about camera controls. One example is when you glance at the top LCD panel the +/- exposure indicators are the reverse of each other. Maybe not so much of a problem for some (especially if you change every kit you use to the other brand) but for me very annoying.

IMO the current gen of both systems are pretty darn good.

oh and is the 5dmkII video a toy? not sure haven't shot anything yet. but what i will say is that while this is first generation, I'm hoping to use it to learn technique and workflow so that I am ready to shoot broadcast quality video when it arrives in a DSLR ...we all said the EOS DCS 3 with it's 1.3MP sensor was a toy at $20,000 in 1995. I shot a couple of jobs on it... you just had to pick the jobs...

The nice thing is that it is now possible to have a real choice between 5 great full frame cameras, 3 being Nikon, and 2 Canon. Though not a certainty, it seems pretty likely that Nikon will offer two FF 12MP cameras and two FF 24MP cameras within the next year. The other real benefit of the Nikon prosumer option like the D700 is that Nikon do not scimp on things like build quality, and autofocus modules in their cheaper cameras as Canon appear to do. Considering there were no Nikon choices just over a year ago that's a considerable improvement for us Nikon users. Yes Nikon has taken it's time, but their products have been pretty flawless once released, the same cannot be said for Canon with their 1DMkIII and possibly now this 'black-dot' thing with the 5DMkII. We'll see if the D3x excels in similar fashion, I suspect it will from the images I've seen.The dxo tests at least demonstrate that Nikon's sensors are right up there with Canon's, and possibly marginally better.An argument can be made that if for some reason you absolutely must have video now, and 21MP (17% less than Nikon's 24MP for what it's worth) then you have to buy a Canon 5DMkII, from every other perspective - speed, ISO sensitivity, autofocus, highest MP camera - Nikon appears to have the edge. I've only had my D700 in the water once, but I was pretty blown away by the available light high ISO performance which I think will impact my photography underwater a lot more than more MP or even video.One has to be pretty jaded to be unhappy with any of the FF cameras presently available from either manufacturer.

On the second one I think the more reliable model is the D3 to D700 wait. Once the D3 was released, then just three months later we were all shocked that the sensor cropped up in a smaller body.

I think that the biggest caveat regarding a D700x is not the if or when. But I can see Nikon calling it a D900 and changing the body from the the D700 - much to the annoyance of those with D700 housings. I really hope that they don't, but there is not the same need to stick with a camera internal structure as with the D3 series (as we already saw with the D300 to D700).

Alex

I'm with you on this; it would seem logical that they do not change the body, as the only thing that has to change is the sensor; unlike the D300- D700 change which required a change in the pentaprism (as a result of the larger sensor) which is the biggest difference affecting the housings for these two cameras.

I think Nikon's biggest problem is the size of Canon group. Canon simply can outspend Nikon to build a product faster and be innovative. To me it's obvious Canon is the more corporate of the 2, very meticulously distinguishing products so it doesn't savage the sales of other product lines. The gap between Canon's pro and prosumer lines are more distinct than Nikon's.
It's also the direction of where the cameras are going. It's obvious video is just a toy for Nikon since they left it out of the D3x but their consumer D90 has it and only at 720P. Canon seems to be pushing toward the prosumer by putting 1080p in their 5D line. It seems they are testing waters with it for implementation in the 1D series if successful.
Housing manufacturers would pretty short sighted to ignore the video aspect of the 5D2. With the combination of high ISO performance and fast lenses, using video/torch lighting seems to be another exciting way to illuminate subjects.
Nikon does seem to have caught up in many ways in terms of performance. Their mistake of DX being as the pro choice certainly limited them resolutionwise. I think that's why the 1Ds3 took so long to come out, it simply wasn't needed as Nikon had nothing to compare with it. I do think the mid/low range cameras is where the manufacturers make the money. That's where the 5D series will be popular. It has limitations with the video mode but used right, it's as good as a $3k video camera in quality of picture (if not for the latitude issue) all in a DSLR package.

Drew
Moderator
"Journalism is what someone else does not want printed, everything else is public relations."

"I was born not knowing, and have only had a little time to change that here and there.

Great thread! Very timely as this is an exciting time to be using these great machines.

I don't think that Nikon trumps Canon in the high ISO arena. Remember just a few months ago the perception was the other way around. The fact that Nikon introduced a FF pro camera at 12 megapixels meant that they could use modern sensor technology in a 'low' megapixel camera; result - awesome high ISO performance. Just think if the 5DmkII had a 12 megapixel sensor and was introduced today... but instead Canon has gone to more megapixels and video with still very good high ISO performance - I use mine at ISO1600 all the time.

High ISO performance is one of the main reasons im looking at the D700/D3. I still love my D2x, its served me well for the last 3 years, and I may still decide to just stay with that. But at times I do hit what I consider the main drawback of the D2x, its somewhat bad (by modern standard) ISO performance. 400 is just usable, forget about 800. Video is not a real must-have, but it'd be nice for reasons I explained earlier. I love watching behavior, and it would be great if i could capture some of it without dropping photography all together.

I dont really see myself moving to Canon, although the 5D2 is almost exactly what id like right now. Im totally used to Nikon cameras, and i dont really want to re-learn a whole new system.

Great thread! Very timely as this is an exciting time to be using these great machines.

I don't think that Nikon trumps Canon in the high ISO arena. Remember just a few months ago the perception was the other way around. The fact that Nikon introduced a FF pro camera at 12 megapixels meant that they could use modern sensor technology in a 'low' megapixel camera; result - awesome high ISO performance. Just think if the 5DmkII had a 12 megapixel sensor and was introduced today... but instead Canon has gone to more megapixels and video with still very good high ISO performance - I use mine at ISO1600 all the time.

CheersJames

Splitting hairs I agree, but most tests, including the dxo one, do give the high ISO edge at present to Nikon. I think there is a place for high ISO capability, so I was surprised that Canon went to a 21MP camera with the 5D. I think they could have done a 15 or so MP camera as most were expecting, still made the MP people happy, and probably improved on the noise performance of the D3/D700. By going to a 21MP camera they have also given up on frame rate which is significant to some. It's just plain physics, that everything else being equal larger and fewer pixels equals less noise and faster frame rate. I think the one camera where Canon have clearly lost ground is in the sports / action area where the D3 has made significant inroads on the 1DMkIII territory. I would not be surprised if Canon's next big move were not to put a 14-16MP full frame sensor in this camera.

I think Nikon's biggest problem is the size of Canon group. Canon simply can outspend Nikon to build a product faster and be innovative.

The biggest companies may be able to outspend, but they are rarely the most innovative. People have a tendency to believe that larger firms have some inherent advantage in either/both innovation and cost. This is rarely the case in reality or else the big guy would always crush smaller guys.

I could have written Cor's post a few years ago while snapping away with my D100. I found Nikon much further behind back then and it mattered more back then as we were not nearly as far down the road to market maturity.

In hindsight, I'm glad I stuck with Nikon. I'm happy with the lens combinations I have and the results from my lowly D200 are quite satisfactory. While video is kind of cool, it really is too limited at this point to be a consideration.

When I switched to the D2x, I thought it was the be-all, end-all camera. Now, for some reason, 12mp is just soooo yesterday's technology. The images are still the same today as a few years ago.

I still haven't found a compelling reason to upgrade from a D200 from an underwater perspective, although higher frame rates and high ISO performance is definitely in the lust category for topside.

In summary, even if you can objectively conclude that Canon is and always will be one step ahead, that step isn't big enough anymore to make much of a difference. The denominator for each step keeps getting bigger.